Sunday, July 09, 2006

The syndicator of Ann Coulter's newspaper column is looking into allegations that the right-wing pundit has lifted material from other sources.

It then goes on to state:

The New York Post and the Web sites Raw Story and the Rude Pundit have raised numerous questions about Coulter's columns

Now if you Google "Raw Story", the first result comes back:

"The Raw Story is a liberal alternative to the Drudge report, culling news, arts and business reporting from around the world."

If you go to Rude Pundit, you will find a birthday wish for the President that states "The Rude Pundit thinks we should all chip in and get George W. Bush a corpse for the start of his seventh decade despoiling the Earth." In addition there is this post:

Why Ann Coulter Is a C***, Part 1856 - The Plagiarism Edition:Sometimes beating up on Ann Coulter is about as easy as making a nervous little dog piss itself. One tiny "boo" in the right direction and that b*** is swimming in her own fluids. For surely, in her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "a stomach-churning, cringe-inducing, bowel-releasing journey into the dark, dank, garbage-stinking recesses of a deranged demi-brain"), Coulter sets herself upon a Tower of Babble teetering so badly that a flea flick would send her screaming, such sweet screaming, plunging onto the rocky ground below.

Now I am not a Ann Coulter defender, I usually read her columns but have never purchased a book. What bothers me is the Seattle Times uses "right wing" to describe Ann Coulter but does not mention "left wing" or "liberal" in describing these web sites. Why one and not the other? They seem to not miss a chance to throw in political philosophy on the right such as later in the article when they mention: